Commissioner of Income Tax-II vs. Smt G Sailaja

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

3) KHC 193 (DB)], the question must be referred for consideration by a Full Bench. 13. Adv. A.Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for the three priests who have individually filed appeals, after adopting the arguments of the learned Senior Counsel, further added that the right claimed by the three individual appellants is sourced from the canon law and according

The Commissioner of Income Tax -1 vs. Harmahendar Singh Bagga

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

3) KHC 193 (DB)], the question must be referred for consideration by a Full Bench. 13. Adv. A.Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for the three priests who have individually filed appeals, after adopting the arguments of the learned Senior Counsel, further added that the right claimed by the three individual appellants is sourced from the canon law and according

Commissioner of Income TAx-II, Hyderabad vs. M/s. Sri Balaji Bio MAss Power Pvt. Ltd.,

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

3) KHC 193 (DB)], the question must be referred for consideration by a Full Bench. 13. Adv. A.Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for the three priests who have individually filed appeals, after adopting the arguments of the learned Senior Counsel, further added that the right claimed by the three individual appellants is sourced from the canon law and according

Commissioner of Income Tax-II, vs. The Sirpur Paper Mills Ltd.,

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

3) KHC 193 (DB)], the question must be referred for consideration by a Full Bench. 13. Adv. A.Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for the three priests who have individually filed appeals, after adopting the arguments of the learned Senior Counsel, further added that the right claimed by the three individual appellants is sourced from the canon law and according

DIRECTOR OF INCOMD TAX [INTERNATIONAL TAXATION] HYDERABAD vs. M/S M W ZANDER [S] PTE LIMITED-INDIA BR, HYDERABAD

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO

TDS. On the other hand, clause(viia) of Sub Section(3) of Section 194A exempts from the requirement of TDS

Commissioner of Income Tax-(TDS), vs. M/s.Neeladri Chit Funds Private Ltd.,

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

TDS. On the other hand, clause(viia) of Sub Section(3) of Section 194A exempts from the requirement of TDS

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II, HYDERABAD vs. M/S. PATNI TELECOM SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD.,

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO

TDS. On the other hand, clause(viia) of Sub Section(3) of Section 194A exempts from the requirement of TDS

M/s.V.R.Farms Pvt Ltd vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO

3. All the appeals are in respect of assessment years prior to the amendments to Explanation 1 after section 234B(1) and to the Explanation after section 234C(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ―the said Act‖) by virtue of the Finance Act, 2006, w.e.f. 01.04.2007. According to the learned counsel for the appellant/revenue, after

M/s Modi Builders AND Realtors (P) Ltd., vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income tax,

The appeals are disposed of

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

3) of section 143 or section 144 or section 147 or section 154 or section 155 or section 250 or section 254 or section 260 or section 262 or section 263 or section 264 or an order of the Settlement Commission under sub-section (4) of section 245D, the amount on which interest was ITA Nos. 167/2012 & 168/2012 Page

Mr. Vasamsetty Veera Venkata Satyanarayana vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -1

Appeal stands dismissed

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

3) [ITA-13/2025] Section 201(1) and under Section 201(1A) of Rs.2,753/- towards interest. 5. Learned CIT (TDS

The Commissioner of Income Tax-I, vs. M/s. Celestial Laboratories Limited,

In the result, the appeal is disposed of

3. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS) conducted a survey of the premises of the assessee and recorded the statement of assessee’s Chief Executive Officer under Section

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III vs. M/S. SOMA ENTERPRISES LTD

The appeal is disposed off accordingly

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Ravi Malimath

3. The Assessee filed its return of income on 31.10.2006 admitting a total income of Rs.nil. The return of Income was processed under Section 143(1) by the Income Tax Officer, Mandya. The case was selected for scrutiny in accordance with the scrutiny guidelines issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes. Notice under Section 143(2) was issued

The Commissioner of Income Tax-III vs. Smt.D.K.Aruna

The appeals are disposed of accordingly

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

TDS) Shimla …. Respondent. 3 Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice M.S. Ramachandra Rao, Chief Justice. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the appellants : Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, with M/s Rakesh Dhaulta, Pranay Pratap Singh, Additional Advocate Generals and M/s Arsh Rattan, Sidharth Jalta, Deputy Advocate Generals, with Mr. Rakesh Sharma, Standing

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX IV vs. M/S. PRABHATH AGRI BIO TECH P. LTD.,

The appeals stand dismissed

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

TDS provisions relate to and prescribe one of the modes of collection of tax. It is with this objective that duties or “obligations” are imposed on the payer. This does not override or disturb the primary “obligation” imposed by the charging section read with the computation provisions. Further, we are specifically concerned with Section

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1 vs. M/s Sri Sri Gruha Nirman India Pvt. Ltd.

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, thereby adding a sum of Rs. 3,96,77,265/- holding that the trade discount offered by the respondent/assessee to the buyer M/s S.Chand & Co. was in the nature of commission on which the respondent/assessee had failed to deduct TDS

Commissioner of Income Tax V vs. C Eswar Reddy AND Co.,

The appeals stand dismissed answering all the

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

TDS default for the relevant assessment year to be Rs.1,36,040/- and the Assessing Officer was directed to pass revised order under Section 201 of the Act. Similarly, reckoning the deduction made under Annexure-9 produced in M.A. No. 452 of 2015, the Commissioner restricted the penalty under Section 271C to Rs.74,669/-. Both the orders of the Commissioner

The Commissioner of Income Tax -11 vs. The AP Mineral Development Corporation Ltd

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

TDS), HUBLI. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, RAVI MALIMATH J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT Revenue, with a question of law as to whether Tribunal was correct in holding that a Co-operative Bank was not required to deduct tax on the interest paid to the members on the ground that they were exempt under Section 194A(3

The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-6 vs. Mrs. Urmila Singh

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

TDS), HUBLI. THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, RAVI MALIMATH J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT Revenue, with a question of law as to whether Tribunal was correct in holding that a Co-operative Bank was not required to deduct tax on the interest paid to the members on the ground that they were exempt under Section 194A(3